What was he thinking?!?

Blessed are the peacemakers.

 

Very well, I stand up and say the following are wrong.

• Spike Lee - For the previously mentioned reasons
• Al Sharpton - For the reason a previous poster demonstrated so clearly on how Mr. Sharpton came to power.
• Jesse Jackson - For blackmailing corporations for personal profit via race-baiting
• Chris Rock - For all his racist comedy
• Jose Angel Gutierrez U of Texas Professor - For calling for elimination of caucasians..."We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
• Kamau Kambon, author and teacher of African Studies at NCU - For calling for elimination of caucasians..."We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet."
• Howard Stern - For basically everything he does.
• Glenn Beck - For offending fat people..."Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?"and for offending 9-11 victim families... "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."
• Neal Boortz - For offending black people...In reference to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's hair do..."like a ghetto slut," like "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory,"
• The TV program Survivor - for offending everyone by having an ethnically based Survivor challenge
• Rush Limbaugh - For offending black quarterbacks..."[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn't deserve." and black directors "'Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out.' "
• Bill O'Reilly - For offending kidnap victims..."there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances"
• Michael Savage - On Barbara Walters..."She's an empty mind-slut. She'd peddle anything for a ratings point."

The primary source for the above quotes is Media Matters and they desire to apply pressure to more than just Imus. Some or many of the quotes above are pretty offensive and one can see how others might find them worthy of hype and dismissals if the same Imus criteria is applied. The quotes of folks advocating for genocide (Gutierrez and Kambon) are not joking and should be reviewed by law enforcement. However, where it gets sticky is Media Matters mentions some quotes that are satirical/jokes etc and some quotes that some might not find offensive but Media Matters does as they highlight quotes about sodomites and illegal immigrants, groups that are violating the laws of nature and the laws of this country. Now, who is going to police these quotes? What should the criteria be for calling for the dismissal of people for their speech be and who will establish this criteria?

The problem with this type of censorship is it is a slippery slope. We start setting precedents that anyone who says anything offensive about certain groups and all of a sudden the exchange of ideas gets narrower and narrower for fear of saying anything wrong. These types of reactions will affect people in the street and people in the pulpit as more and more speech and thought control is pressured upon the people (there are already instances of average Joes being fired for sharing their non-pc views outside of the office). Imus was wrong, people being offended and outcrying was right, his dismissal is a bad precedent, particularly in light of all of the other more serious things that are said in the public arena.

 

It does matter who gets involved in the aftermath. And it should. I dont care for Imus and why is the hypocracy of racists like Sharpton and Jackson not relevant? Why should a racist be given a pass to condemn a racist?

 

1. You will have to quote me on the "how unfair life is" thing because I doubt I said that.

2. Since Sharpton and jackson are the ones who pushed for his dismissal and since it was Sharpton who interviewed him I would have to say they have quite a bit to do with him and what he said.

3. Since we can just all turn off the TV when Sharpton and jackson speak then we could do so when Imus speaks and what he says is irrelevant also.

 

I'm betting there are those burning the midnight oil, figuring out a way to parlay this Imus incident into a tool to target Rush, Hannity, et al.

They now have found a way to systematically attack free speech when it suits them.

This is a big issue, very big IMHO.

 

Especially Michael Savage!!

No one is attacking free speech, Imus, Limbaugh, and anyone else is free to say what they want, just not on the public airwaves.

 

Actually, the Imus fracas was the result of Freedoms working perfectly:

• Imus was free to make an idiot of himself, and did.
• Leaders/activists/regular folk were free to criticize Imus, and they did; they called on the networks and advertisers to do something.
• Advertisers, under pressure from citizens, pulled out;
• Networks, without advertisers and under pressure, canned Imus.

Regulation of free speech on the public airwaves is very ticklish. If I have any doubt, I'd rather throw my hat in the First Amendment ring than the "fairness doctrine."

 

There may have been public out cry but he did not lose his job over it. Sadly the same cannot be said for IMus.
Faithgirl

 

I have significant moral problems with Soulforce and the like. However, I have no problem with them voicing their views in the public arena. I would defend their right to speak against Biblical Christianity in respect to the government not penalizing them for their views and I would not desire that they lose their jobs because of the views they maintain.

 

Free to say anything they want, so long as people don't hear them?

 

This question doesn't make any sense.

 

You said they are free to say anything they want just not in public or more specifically over "public airwaves". What value does free speech have if you can't use speech in public so that people can hear you?

 

10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 1:45 a.m. ET by one of the moderators. LE

 

There is a difference between "public" and "public airwaves." Surely you can see the difference.

 

Closed at 0843 EDT